Summa de Ecclesia

Since to us, with ever better judgement saved, the first way of speaking seems more reasonable and appears more conformed to the doctrine of blessed Thomas, whom we have taken as leader and master to be followed in all doubts of this kind: we shall answer the reasons brought in for the second way of speaking. But in answering we shall observe the order observed by the adversaries. For we shall say concerning each of their conclusions what seems to us according to the first way of speaking, subjoining answers to each of the reasons brought in for them. ¹ But the first conclusion of those thinking otherwise does not seem true, in which they say that the Pope secretly lapsed into heresy is not by divine law deprived of the papacy: for since made a heretic he has fallen away from the rock of faith upon which the fabric and power of the whole ecclesiastical edifice rises, it necessarily seems that he has fallen from ecclesiastical power. Nor do the reasons brought in by those thinking otherwise in any way prove their intent. ² Whence to the first which is taken from ch. Audivimus 24. q. 1. it is answered that through the fact that in that chapter it is said that that bishop from the time he began to preach such things could condemn no one, it is not argued that an occult heretic before he publicly preached his heresy could condemn anyone, since the Gloss in the beginning of the same question most openly teaches the contrary saying thus: But say thou indistinctly that whether he follows an old or a new heresy he is excommunicated, although he be occult, and therefore he cannot excommunicate another. Extra on heretics, Ad abolendam. Yet other things which he does hold meanwhile while he is tolerated, ar. 3. q. 7. § Tria, and the sentence of excommunication which he bore is to be tolerated while he himself is occult although it is null. And below: Because every heretic is excommunicated however occult he be, therefore he cannot excommunicate others. Whence if I knew my prelate to be a heretic because he invents a new heresy, yet does not preach it, if he excommunicated me I could celebrate in secret not openly, for since I could not prove him to be a heretic he would depose me so excommunicated, but what of the other sentence? The same: because the sentence which he bore is null, but still other things which he does hold while he is tolerated. This the Gloss. From which the reason of the adversaries manifestly appears void.

³ To the second reason in which argument is made concerning Judas and the Jews it is answered that it does not make for the proposition. Both because they had no spiritual ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And because it is not proved that they fell into heresy and were not in truth deprived of the power of jurisdiction if they had any.

⁴ To the third reason when it is argued that it could be doubted etc. it is answered denying the consequence: for as long as he should be tolerated those things which he does would be reputed valid according to the Gloss brought in above on ch. Audivimus 24. q. 1.

⁵ To the fourth reason in which it is argued that the whole ecclesiastical order would be confounded etc. it is answered denying the consequence according to some of the other opinion, for they say that since the universal Church is ruled by the Holy Spirit it will never fail in those things which are necessary to salvation, although it could fail in others. Whence if the Pope were an occult heretic, and consequently deprived of the papacy, and therefore could not exercise those things which are of jurisdiction, although he could do those things which are of orders, God would provide for His Church by revealing to it the perfidy of the pope, and by making the things he did of no avail in what belongs to jurisdiction, or by preserving some bishops by another mode possible to Him although unknown to us. And therefore no ecclesiastical order necessary to the salvation of the universal Church would be confounded although many things without which salvation can exist could be confounded. For God would preserve lest those things be confounded which are necessary to the universal Church for salvation. Like seems to be the answer of Saint Thomas in the fourth distinction twenty-fourth to the case in which someone not baptized should be promoted to bishop, where he says thus: Those whom such a one ordains have not orders, but still it can piously be believed that as to the last effects of the sacraments the high priest would supply the defect and that he would not permit this so to lie hidden through which danger to the Church could threaten. This Saint Thomas. And so in the proposition it seems to be said. Moreover that reason of the adversaries equally concludes that a woman cannot be thought Pope and held for Pope, and that a pagan and infidel reputed yet a Christian and faithful cannot be held for Pope, as that a Pope heretic and by divine law deprived of the papacy cannot be held for Pope. It is clear because if a woman, or a pagan were held for Pope and de facto consecrated bishops and ordained and promoted Christians to ecclesiastical dignities, the ecclesiastical hierarchy would not less be confounded than if a heretic by divine law deprived of the papacy were thought by catholics to be Pope. For although ordaining de facto and consecrating he would confer on no one the execution of office, yet he would confer order provided he kept the form of the Church. But a woman or a pagan or a Jew who never was a Christian would confer neither execution nor any true order, although he kept the form of the Church. Since therefore it stands that once a woman was thought Pope by all catholics and by the same reason some pagan or Jew retaining in heart the perfidy of infidelity could be thought a Christian and assumed to Pope, it is not incredible that sometimes a heretic be held for Pope although he be not true Pope because by divine law he is deprived of the papacy. So therefore it stands that greater is the difficulty if a woman be held for Pope than if the Pope become a heretic although by divine law by the deed itself he be deprived of the papacy. And therefore if in the upper case with divine providence protecting his Church there followed no confusion of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, much less would it follow in the aforesaid case if the Pope were occultly a heretic.

⁶ Moreover neither does the second conclusion posited by those thinking otherwise seem true, in which it is said that the Pope made a manifest heretic is not by divine law itself deprived of the papacy. For its opposite has been proved above to have truth by authorities of sacred Scripture as well as of the canons as well as by reasons. But the reasons made for that conclusion also do not proceed, whence it must be said to them.

⁷ To the first when argument is made concerning the high priest of the old law it is answered in two ways. First denying the minor. For it is said that the high priest of the old law by the very fact that he was made a heretic was deprived of the high priesthood, nor was he then high priest according to truth although he existed according to the opinion of men as high priest. Secondly it is answered that there is no likeness concerning the high priest of the ancient law and the high priest of the new law. Both first, because the high priest of the ancient law had the priesthood by right of succession, but the high priest of the new law had not. And secondly because the priesthood of the ancient law was carnal, but the priesthood of the new law spiritual.

⁸ To the second reason when it is argued that the Pope is not of worse condition than other prelates, it is answered denying the minor. For it is said by those who are of the first opinion, that all bishops and prelates incurring heretical depravity whether publicly or occultly are by divine law deprived of their dignities, because in those things which are properly of the Christian religion there can be no communion of a heretic with a faithful man, and therefore as to those things which are spiritual a heretic cannot preside over the faithful. Which is thus shown. For the distinction of faithful and infidel is not from human law canonical and civil, but is from divine law. And therefore that an infidel — as is every heretic — ought not to preside over the faithful in spiritual things, is of divine law. Wherefore by divine law every heretic seems deprived of all ecclesiastical prelacy, which the Apostle in 2 Corinthians 6. seems to intimate when he says: Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation has justice with iniquity, or what fellowship has light with darkness, what agreement of Christ with Belial, or what part has the faithful with the infidel, or what accord of the temple with idols? In which words the Apostle seems to command all the faithful lest they be subject to infidels and lest they communicate with them, which has truth most of all as to spiritual things and those which are proper to the Christian religion. For although in temporal things the faithful can be subject to infidels and communicate with them, yet in spiritual things they ought not to be subject to them. And so every heretic since he is an infidel seems by divine law to be deprived of all ecclesiastical prelacy, and so the minor of that reason is false according to the opinion of those, which seems to us more apparent. And to its proof it is answered, that although inferior bishops to the supreme pontiff and other prelates if they should incur heretical depravity are by divine law deprived of all ecclesiastical prelacy, yet from reasonable cause dispensation can be made through the Church, that returned to faith they be restored to their dignities, and such restoration either is a new election or an equivalent provision of a new one.

⁹ To the third reason when argument is made concerning the Emperor and kings it is answered that there is no likeness. And the reason is, because ecclesiastical prelacy was introduced by divine law and founded upon the rock of faith. For from divine ordination it is that one faithful man presides in spiritual things over other faithful men, John 10.: There shall be one fold and one shepherd. But secular prelacy was introduced by human law. For from human ordination it is that one presides in temporal things over others. And therefore because there ought to be a distinction between the faithful and infidels as to spiritual things, nor do they communicate in spiritual things but dissent, since in faith itself which is the foundation of all goods, as Aug. says, they disagree, but in temporal things which are common to the faithful and infidels they can agree. And therefore although secular princes however they are made heretics are not by divine law deprived of secular principate, yet ecclesiastical prelates if they are made heretics are by divine law by the deed itself deprived of ecclesiastical principate.

¹⁰ To the fourth reason when argument is made concerning the cause: the answer is clear from what has been said. For we say that the cause on account of which a prelate made a heretic is by the deed itself deprived of prelacy is, because a heretic cannot preside in spiritual things over catholics. But what is brought in concerning Joseph and Daniel and other faithful over whom infidels presided, is not to the proposition, because that presidency was in temporal things which by divine law is not taken away from infidels, as has been said.

¹¹ To the fifth when it is argued: to whom belongs institution etc. it is answered that this assumption is not generally true. The metropolitan can confirm, consecrate and institute one elected to bishop and yet can by no means depose the same. Moreover although that assumption were generally true, yet this is false that the deposition of anyone belongs to him alone to whom institution belongs, because the institution of a priest belongs to the bishop and yet one superior to the bishop can depose him. And so in the proposition it does not follow that the Pope cannot be deposed by divine law which is above all human law and the power of all electors; nay God is said to have reserved to himself in particular the deposition of the supreme pontiffs according to ch. Eiectionem, dist. 79, where Saint Anacletus the pope thus says: The ejection of the supreme pontiffs the Lord has reserved to Himself, although He committed their election to good priests and spiritual peoples, where the gloss says: And so fails the rule to whom belongs institution and deposition, 16. q. 5, visis. ¹² To the sixth reason when it is argued that it is not found in sacred Scripture, it is answered denying this, and to the proof it is answered that although explicitly under formal words it is not had from sacred Scripture concerning privation of the office of prelacy of the Pope or of any other ecclesiastical prelate made a heretic, nevertheless it is had implicitly under other words in sacred Scripture, as appeared through many authorities brought in above in ch. 18., from which by manifest consequence it seems to be had that the Pope and every other ecclesiastical prelate made a pertinacious heretic is deprived of prelacy. Plainly he who by divine law is not to be followed but fled, with whom there is no communicating or obeying, but contradicting, who is not to be received nor greeted, who is not to be sustained, but rather to be slain, seems by the same law deprived of the spiritual prelacy which he has over the faithful. Moreover neither does the third conclusion of those thinking otherwise seem true, but rather the opposite, nor does the reason brought in prove their intent. ¹³ The first appears: for since through heresy man falls from the rock of faith upon which all ecclesiastical authority is founded, heresy from its specific nature seems to induce deposition from all ecclesiastical dignity in him who lapses into heresy and pertinaciously clings to it. The second also namely that their reason which they bring in from the gloss of the decree in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21. does not prove their intent. It appears: for since we speak of a heretic properly so called, such as is he who has pertinacity in the heresy into which he lapsed, that gloss does not seem to make anything for the proposition of the adversaries: for Marcellinus was never a pertinacious heretic. Both because although, overcome by fear of death, he had burned incense to idols, yet he never erred in mind against any article of faith. And also because he was ready to be corrected. ¹⁴ Moreover the fourth conclusion of those thinking otherwise does not seem true: nay its opposite conclusion is true, namely the ecclesiastical canon in case of heresy binds even the Pope as another. And to the proof when it is said that the Pope is superior to the canons and is loosed from them it is answered that this is false concerning the Pope made a heretic. For such a one in case of heresy is bound by the punishments of the canons as any other whatever. Which appears by manifold testimony. First is ch. Si papa, dist. 40. where it is said that the Pope comes to be judged if he is found devious from faith, where the gloss puts that the Pope cannot institute that he cannot be accused of heresy, because from this the whole Church would be endangered. Likewise the gloss in ch. Achatius, 24. q. 1. says thus: This is the case in which Pope can bind Pope, in which the Pope falls into a canon of latae sententiae. Nor does that rule stand in the way: An equal cannot loose or bind an equal, because if the Pope is a heretic, in that he is a heretic he is less than any catholic, 12. q. 1. Scimus. The same says Hugh in ch. Inferior, dist. 21. under these words: When the Pope falls into heresy he is understood to be no longer greater, but less than any catholic. Likewise Lord Archdeacon upon ch. In fidei favorem, On heretics, book 6. says thus: So great is the favour of faith that even of occult heresy the Pope can be accused, 40. dist. Si papa. To the same is Saint Thomas in the fourth dist. 19. speaking of fraternal correction, as in fi., art. 2 of the distinction, says thus: For prelates are not to be corrected by subjects before a multitude, but humbly in private, unless danger of faith should threaten, for then the prelate would become less if he lapsed into infidelity and the faithful subject greater. These things he. Likewise the same Saint Thomas in 4. distinct. 18. in the matter of excommunication answering to that Gal. 1: If an angel from heaven shall have evangelized otherwise let him be anathema, where it seems that the apostle who was inferior excommunicated an angel who was superior, answers that the apostle speaks under hypothesis, that is if an angel were posited to sin, for thus he would not be superior to the apostle. Likewise Raymund in his Summa, in the title on heresy, § 2. says: Heretics are punished in four ways, namely by excommunication, deposition, taking away of goods, and military persecution. By excommunication, because today every heretic whether occult or manifest is by the law itself excommunicated, 24. q. 1 and 2, and Extra on heretics, Ad abolendam. By deposition, because indistinctly whether he be cleric or layman, Pope or emperor or any other inferior ought to be deposed from all dignity, as 40. dist. Si papa, 23. q. 1. Si contra pacem, Extra on heretics, Ad abolendam. Geoffrey agrees and Hostiensis and John in the Summa etc. From which it is manifestly held that in a case of heresy the Pope is subjected to the canonical punishments just as any other. Whence in the sixth synod Pope Honorius is condemned because he is said to have denied two wills and two operations in Christ. ¹⁵ Moreover the answer given by some of those thinking otherwise to the reasons of the first assertion does not seem to satisfy. For which it must be noted according to Saint Thomas in 3. of the sentences dist. 13. that in the natural body there is found a fourfold unity in turn. The first is according to conformity of nature: since all members consist of like parts and are of one account, as hand and foot of flesh and bone, and thus they are called one in genus or species. The second is according to their binding together by nerves and joints, and thus they are called one by continuation. The third is according to that by which the vital spirit and the strengths of the soul are diffused through the whole body. The fourth is according to that by which all members are perfected by the soul which is one in number in all members. And these four unions are found in the mystical body. The first is inasmuch as all members are of one nature, whether in species or genus. The second is inasmuch as they are bound together by faith, because thus they are continued in one believing. The third is according as they are vivified by grace and charity. The fourth is according as in them is the Holy Spirit who is the last perfection and principal of the whole mystical body, as the soul in the natural body. The first of the said unions is not union simply, because that in which this union is is not one in number as in the three following, because through faith and charity they are united in one believed and loved according to number. Likewise the Holy Spirit one in number fills all men in number, therefore infidels do not pertain to the union of the body of the Church according as it is one simply. And therefore of the remaining three Christ is head only in potency according as they are fitted to the body. But faithful men pertain in some way to the unity of the Church inasmuch as they are continued to it through faith which is material union, yet they cannot properly be called members just as neither a dead member except equivocally, and as operations which are toward another can in some way be done through dry members, as to strike or anything of this kind, yet not operations of the soul in members. So neither do the evil receive works of spiritual life from the Holy Spirit, but still the Holy Spirit through them works spiritual life in others according as they minister sacraments or teach. Faithful men existing in grace are united according to the third union which is formal in respect of the second, and again according to the fourth which is completive of the whole, and therefore of these Christ is properly head. This Saint Thomas. From which sayings of Saint Thomas is had that fundamental conclusion, namely that for one to be a member of the Church it is required that in some one thing simply which is one in number he be united to the other members of the Church. Hence follow corollaries. First, that neither conformity of nature nor agreement in gifts makes anyone to be of the unity of the body of the Church or a member or part of it. Both because otherwise all men even infidels and the damned would be said to pertain to the body of the Church as its members, which is absurd. Secondly it follows that even union in participation of the sacraments without faith does not suffice for one to be or be called a member of the Church. It appears. Both from the conclusion. And because it is the doctrine of the saints, that every heretic who yet is presupposed to have otherwise received the Christian religion in holy baptism, is separated and cut off from the body of the Church. Hence it is that although the baptismal character may seem to suffice for one to be capable of the sacramental power which is given in orders, yet it does not seem to suffice for reception of the power of spiritual jurisdiction, nor consequently for the account of head whose it is to flow with spiritual influx into the body whose head it is, otherwise apostates from faith and Antichrist could be head of the body of Christ which is the Church, and those who are members of the devil and in no way pertain to the body of Christ would be head of the body of Christ, which seems absurd. Thirdly it follows from the aforesaid conclusion that for one to be called a member of the Church it is necessary that either by faith, or charity, or both he be united to the other members of the Church. It appears from the conclusion, because only through these theological virtues is union made in one according to number, namely believed and loved. Fourthly it follows that those falling from charity yet holding faith whole are not called cut-off members. It appears because still there remains in them the material union which is called of continuation, as are dry or dead members in some body, it appears from what was said. Fifthly it follows that for one to be head of the Church or prelate and for spiritual life to work through him in others spiritually, it suffices that he be united to the body of the Church through faith even unformed. ¹⁶ It appears from the sayings of Saint Thomas above. Sixthly it follows that he who neither by faith nor by charity is united to the body of the Church cannot be head of the body of the Church, or a spiritual prelate in it. It appears because as was said without faith or charity no one can be a member of the Church as was proved, and consequently nor its head. Seventhly it follows that those who through infidelity cease to be members of the Church fall from all spiritual power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Holy Spirit had given them for spiritual rule of the body of the Church. It appears from what was said. Likewise from that of Pope Innocent in ch. Haeretici, 24. q. 1. where he says: Heretics since they have desisted from the catholic faith have lost the perfection of the spirit which they received. Which does not seem to be expounded of sanctity since even through any mortal sin sanctity is lost, but seems to be expounded of perfection of power and ecclesiastical honour. Whence in the following ch. Cyprian says: We have learned that all heretics whatsoever have no power and right. In which he seems manifestly to say that heretics lose not only the execution of the power of jurisdiction, but also the substance of the power. All which things are said with ever better judgement saved.